All journalism is local.
Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
21–30 of 81 posts
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#22Kissinger's death was where I really started detaching myself from news media entirely. It was extremely hard to find an article or video that didn't say the exact same thing in almost identical wording: "was kissinger a war criminal? well he was certainly controversial but his influence stood large". No, objectively, he was a war criminal. Bombing Cambodia and several other actions were, factually, legally, war crim…
I think it’s hard for an obituary to definitely call someone a war criminal when he was never tried, much less convicted, of a war crime. That’s not to say he shouldn’t have been or his actions don’t qualify, but an obituary is supposed to be somewhat neutral and not an opinion piece, and the facts are that he’s been labeled (perhaps fairly) a war criminal by many, but never actually convicted.
Agreed. For a comparison, the BBC obituary on Bin Laden, whom a lot of people would happily condemn without reservation as a terrorist, shows the same kind of detached neutrality. The second mention is "Saudi-born dissident".
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#23Almost as if a for-profit model isn’t a great fit for journalism… especially on the internet.
The for profit model of journalism has been the dominant form for over 100 years. During the majority of that time it flourished. Only in the last 25 years has it collapsed. I’d say your view probably needs some updating.
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#24Kissinger's death was where I really started detaching myself from news media entirely. It was extremely hard to find an article or video that didn't say the exact same thing in almost identical wording: "was kissinger a war criminal? well he was certainly controversial but his influence stood large". No, objectively, he was a war criminal. Bombing Cambodia and several other actions were, factually, legally, war crim…
I think it’s hard for an obituary to definitely call someone a war criminal when he was never tried, much less convicted, of a war crime. That’s not to say he shouldn’t have been or his actions don’t qualify, but an obituary is supposed to be somewhat neutral and not an opinion piece, and the facts are that he’s been labeled (perhaps fairly) a war criminal by many, but never actually convicted.
We can thank the United States non-participation in the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court for that. Since they can't convict us of war crimes, by default no American can be a war criminal.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck but refuses to accept that it's a duck...it's still a duck.
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#25LOL @ "Brunchlords"
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#26What a callous article. It seems the author is angry that a bunch of people came together to fund a company that failed in the end...well, most startups fail anyway. > Such journalism is a direct reflection of millionaire or billionaire media owners who don’t want to offend sources, advertisers, or event sponsors with bold, truth-telling journalism that has actual teeth. So what you get instead is a sort of journalis…
Pretty sure journalism is not on a decline due to arrogance.
If arrogance is a prime factor in the decline of an industry I think all of us could name plenty of industries that should be subterranean by now.
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#27Almost as if a for-profit model isn’t a great fit for journalism… especially on the internet.
The for profit model of journalism has been the dominant form for over 100 years. During the majority of that time it flourished. Only in the last 25 years has it collapsed. I’d say your view probably needs some updating.
But it collapsed for reasons that can't be reversed or maneuvered around. For all the talk about the more esoteric reasons for journalism's problems like partisan polarization or Big Tech— which aren't wrong but are mostly higher-order correction terms— the fundamental problem is much more simple: most journalism was paid for by things other than reader revenue. Classified ads, movie showtimes, and a whole bunch of other revenue streams were actually what propped up newspapers; these were all obliterated by the Internet and they won't ever return.
At no point in history has journalism ever survived on subscription revenue alone, there was merely an anomalous period where it didn't need to because there were enough sources of supplemental revenue. But now that period is over, and so we have to think about a business model that can survive given the reality of "subscription revenue is not enough and can never be enough".
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#28No one has any great theories on what to do about info overload. So it's going to suck until someone comes up with something new.
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#29Almost as if a for-profit model isn’t a great fit for journalism… especially on the internet.
How do you suggest we pay journalist? They certainty shouldn't work for free.
Re: Messenger Implosion Shows Journalism Lead by Visionless, Fail-Upward Brunchlords
#30Almost as if a for-profit model isn’t a great fit for journalism… especially on the internet.
The for profit model of journalism has been the dominant form for over 100 years. During the majority of that time it flourished. Only in the last 25 years has it collapsed. I’d say your view probably needs some updating.
It was a fluke that it worked so well for so long.